[M.Phil & Ph.D. CUNY Graduate Center. Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Brasilia, Brazil.] My research interests include three interrelated points: (i) the Semantics-Pragmatics distinction as applied to lexical items; (ii) the syntax of complex demonstratives and referential descriptions; and (iii) the idea of a "descriptive designator," a term that refers and describes without quantifying. In my PhD dissertation, "Referring and Describing: Three Essays on the Meaning and Use of Definite Descriptions and Complex Demonstratives," I argue that referential descriptions, complex demonstratives, complex pronouns, and descriptive nam…
[M.Phil & Ph.D. CUNY Graduate Center. Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Brasilia, Brazil.] My research interests include three interrelated points: (i) the Semantics-Pragmatics distinction as applied to lexical items; (ii) the syntax of complex demonstratives and referential descriptions; and (iii) the idea of a "descriptive designator," a term that refers and describes without quantifying. In my PhD dissertation, "Referring and Describing: Three Essays on the Meaning and Use of Definite Descriptions and Complex Demonstratives," I argue that referential descriptions, complex demonstratives, complex pronouns, and descriptive names are all descriptive designators, not "Gödelian quantifiers" or "Haecceity quantifiers." I also claim that definite descriptions (and complex demonstratives) are referential-attributive ambiguous in the sense of semantic polysemy (as opposed to homonymy or pragmatic polysemy). Last, I am also interested in (or more accurately perplexed by) the relationship (if any) between Theories of Interpretation in Linguistics and Philosophical Hermeneutics.
